Talk:Michael Realman/@comment-28912339-20180119040838/@comment-116.237.251.34-20180418141134
Woah, you're so damn clever, I never thought about that at all! Neither did every single other person who has watched this show before! Nice NEW discovery! Nah, I'm kidding you egotistic freak. Before you get your kicks from using evidently try-hard language to attempt to make yourself look smarter than others, which hey: you're not, let me just state the very obvious. This is a comedic show based completely off the ludicrousy and complete unrealisticness of it all. Of course anybody, even a 5 year old child, could come up with hundred of pages worth of psychological errors this show has made, but it's all intentional to make the show what it is - a hilarious masterpiece. By the way, what do you even mean when you say "something far deeper is going on"? This is a comedy, and I highly doubt that these "Gods" would have some darker, sinister or even more ludicrous motive than they already have. Now, next time you want to act all clever and mighty, go theorize about the psychological errors for shows that are more serious and to do with a more psychology-based genre. Clearly the rhetorical question you posted was meant to be condescending and to also make you look clever, but I just wanted to remind you: you're nothing special (:D) and you going on about the philosophy and psychology of human morals is just one of the many other philosophical and psychological errors this show has intentionally made, and the ones all viewers know about but didn't bother to act all smart about. I'd also like to say that you don't need to act all edgy, like you really understand the morals of humans. It really aggravates me seeing people online who act like they're so clever when they're not (different to actually being clever by the way). If you want to make comments on how this show and the characters don't 'get' the the concept of such a delicate issue (by the way please get a bloody dictionary and search up the definition of nuances you moron), do back it up with research or at least reasonable opinions that support it. One thing I'd say to counter what you said, for example, is that the very concept of morals is all perception-based. What I mean by this is that our very definition of 'good', 'bad', and the trillions of other morality terms is based upon our genetic mutation, our will to survive, our perception (as the whole of humanity) on this world and everything beyond it, and a myriad of other reasons. For example, natural beings are instinctively evolving, learning and growing to survive and be superior to other races (and more often than not, beings within their own race!) and we learnt that perhaps bashing each other's faces in with rocks to steal each other's food isn't the best way to progress, both individually and as a whole. Also, our very environment, both living and not, has shaped us into believing certain concepts and what they represent. In short, in another reality, our very perception of morals, and everything within that concept, could be different altogether. I'm not saying the cliched - it could be the complete opposite (although that is a theoretical possibility), but that our opinions, views, and biases on everything in the spectrum of morality could be jumbled up completely, and in a way that is completely out of our imagination. I could go on for ages and ages about how everything in this world is based on the foundation of our perception of things, and our surroundings, and that inhibits our imagination, contrary to popular belief that humans are 'geniuses' and 'imaginative'. All these authors, novelists, playwrights, television producers, etc etc might be seen as creative when they're actually not. Now, that doesn't necessarily stop that from being entertaining ,which it certainly can be, but all I'm saying is that the vast majority of shows and novels are based on previous shows and novels and their plots and concepts. And you might be wondering: "Well, if every zombie show or zombie book was based on a predecessor, what about the original one that inspired every other zombie show/book?", and the answer to that is the influence of their surroundings and environment. For example, we are around living people all the time, and hence we have built concepts of life and death. Take someone who saw one dead person, or maybe saw a film or read a book about dead people. That can spur them on to 'imagine' dead people coming back to life - creating a whole new concept, one that would be insanely popular amongst horror entertainment in games, films and novels alike: zombies. That, however, still doesn't make it original (although it is definitely more original than the following, although improved, versions that are based on the concept of zombies). My point is, nothing that people ever come up with is completely original and unthinkable because every human is limited and confined to the same reality. Of course we might think we have all the freedom in the world - we can get whatever career we want, go to the cinema whenever we feel like it, etc. There are so many examples, and there's no need to list them all. This is all our perception, however. Our reality limits us, because everything in this reality is already brought to us, so we can only come up with new concepts based on things that are already in this reality. We simply cannot come up with a new concept that isn't to do with something in our reality. It sounds complicated and it's difficult to explain, so to make this simpler, I'm talking about something that's beyond just a whole new object. Coming up with a completely new object with a unique shape, purpose and possibly even material that has never been used in the world before is already superbly difficult to most people because chances are most of them have already been thought of already. But it's not impossible. However, even if you came up with that, it would still not be transcending the confines of your reality and to be truly 'original' and 'imaginative'. Of course, the terms for 'original' and 'imaginative' that I'm using here in this absurdly long comment is subjective in a way, like everything else in all of reality, but even so, to be truly and utterly original would be like creating a concept beyond reality. Linking back to my previous example on the unique object, coming up with a concept beyond objects itself and actually beyond the concept of concept itself would be truly unique. Of course, it's only purely unique because it's phsyically impossible to do: we simply cannot come up with a concept that has nothing whatsoever to do with the reality that surrounds and inhibits us, and that is what makes it pure and unique. If we could do it, it wouldn't be pure and unique, and then that definition would go to something else that hasn't been achieved yet. This, however, can never be achieved because it's impossible :D Now that I'm at the end of this utter bullshit, it's kinda dawned to me that I kinda got off topic, so to link it back to the topic, all the psychological shite I typed was an example of how you should go about showing off your psychological and in-depth thinking if you really wanted to make it look half-impressive. Of course that would now render me a hypocrite for calling you egotistic and wanting to show off, because I am both those things too (pretty pathetic of me, now that I think about it), but hey: I might go about showing off all this deep analysis on human nature, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm human too. Just like how I think we're all limited to the imaginative confines of our perception and reality itself, and that I'm no different, I think you're an egotistic moron, but that doesn't make me any different (except, perhaps, the moron part. I'm a show-off but I'm definitely not moronic or stupid). Just a quick comment on the concept of intelligence and stupidity, yes I know it's subjective and the true definition is not fixed. However, I should think that according to the most popular view on intelligence "Understanding and applying knowledge by using your surroundings and experiences; ability to think abstractly; as well as the ability to learn and grasp new knowledge as well as think creatively and differently to add to the knowledge." I also understand some people might use different wording and shit, or have something to add or subtract, but that's pretty much what most people think of intelligence (if they really tried deeply thinking about it I suppose) and that the people who comment otherwise are probably (not certainly though) trying to spite me.